[Click screenshot from Republic's homepage for bigger view]
The Arizona Republic has found another trick to connect readers and advertisers: a homepage link (circled, above) to what looks an article touting the health benefits of acai berry.
But it actually takes readers to a webpage tricked out to look like a blog called Consumers Weekly Digest. (See screenshot, below.) Only alert readers would notice the tiny word "advertorial" above that.
The problem, of course, is the link off the homepage isn't properly identified as advertising matter. In the old days -- say, just a few years ago -- newspapers and TV stations drew a bright line between editorial and advertising. But in the hunt for more revenue, that wall is crumbling at Gannett's No. 2 daily. (And it may be No. 1, given USA Today's recent dearth of advertising.)
Got an ethically questionable link? Please post your replies in the comments section, below. To e-mail confidentially, write jimhopkins[at]gmail[dot-com]; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the rail, upper right.
Those ads have been appearing on lots of Web sites. It's not just Gannett. I think it's the Acia Berry people trying to shape ads to look like news stories. I think it's another question if the ad department at the paper should be weeding them out, but I don't see it as an exclusive Gannett problem.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that readers aren't as dumb as publishers seem to think they are. If I click on a link like that more than a handful of times and realize I'm being directed to an ad, I'll simply stop going to the Web site. I just don't have time to waste getting duped.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, the fact that Gannett is allowing this, could lead people to see their sites as untrustworthy. When all you have to sell is content, that's the death knell.
You gotta love the dinosaur purists who love to fall on their heroic swords. Listen lemmings, your boat sailed a long time ago. Consumers get their information and their ads a million different ways. Stop bitching about the line between information and ads. It's here. it's here forever, it appears in all areas of the information sharing business. Enough with wishing it was 1963 again and editors used to throw ad people out of the newsroom. It's over.
ReplyDeleteWell, The Courier-Journal home page has, on the left-hand side, a rotating set of three stories. Above them is a right-facing arrow -- I clicked on that this morning, believing it would advance me to the next story. Instead, a pop-up ad appeared. I tried it again, thinking perhaps I made a mistake, but the pop-up appeared again. That page is littered with little traps -- run your cursor over the wrong spot, and you're likely to trigger some kind of advertising. Classy.
ReplyDeleteYeah, it's over. It's over so much that Gannett newspapers (and possibly others) are abandoning their coverage of entire communities because they're not generating ad dollars.
ReplyDeleteGotta focus coverage on those areas with megamalls and residents with megabucks.
Yeah, it sure is over. Newspaper advertorial sections written by reporters instructed to accent the "positive" and downplay any "negatives."
The so-called "Chinese Wall" is down and will never be re-built.
I've seen those on other sites. The ads on Shreveport's Web site are clearly marked "advertisement". However, the print version recently ran a full-page advertorial from an Antiques Roadshow-type company several times without the disclaimer. The text was similar to Shreveport's font and the layout was like a regular page with photos. Groan.
ReplyDeleteWeird. "Amy Connor" looks a LOT like French TV personality (and ultra-hottie) Melissa Theriau.
ReplyDeleteThese contextual ads are on many large websites, including the one I work for now (not Gannett, though I used to work there). I think for the most part news consumers have learned not to look in the right rail for ads and news web designers have learned to keep useful content out of there. The landing pages are pretty sneaky, as noted by Jim.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is this: once a revenue stream has been added to the river, it can't be dammed away. These ads, along with popunders, will be on most major news sites until someone finally manages to get through people's heads that Acai berry isn't a miracle cure (though it is pretty good for you), that you can't lose weight without dieting and/or exercise, that cheap teeth whitening and insurance and loans are you-get-what-you-pay-for, and that yes, we all know what Netflix is and how much it costs.
12:44 -- You can call everyone lemmings if you like. The point I made in my post at 12:24 is that I stop going to sites that try to convince me that something is real content only to direct me to an ad. I don't do it the first time that it happens, but if it starts happening repeatedly I just leave. And that site is going to have to have something pretty damn good on it to convince me to come back.
ReplyDeleteAs you note, there are lots of ways to get information these days and -- as a guy who knows a fair amount about all types of media -- I pick my sources carefully. Those that present me with a bad user experience are history.
It's actually the sites that use ads like this that hope people are lemmings. They assume people are too stupid to figure out what's going on. But most people aren't. It's like everything else in business these days, the ads are designed for short-term income with no concern about what they might do to the long-term viability of the core product.
So, go ahead, tout the next big thing. Argue that core news values have no place in the world anymore and keep arguing that point for the next 15 years, long after these techniques have and gone. I'm betting you'll be the dinosaur before you know it.
Untainted news will always have value and draw an audience. The key to saving this business is finding the correct way to monetize it. If you go about it like this, by de-valuing the product, it won't be long before you have nothing to sell.
I'd have a lot more faith in our readers if we didn't regularly get letters telling us to just report the facts and keep our opinions to ourselves... when we write our editorials.
ReplyDeleteI'm an old fart at 39 - I can ignore advertising content on radio, tv, web or newsprint - unless it's innovative or clever. Guess what? I can do the same for piss-poor reporting and the entire sports section.
If someone sees that Acai Berrys can cure gullibility, and they're interested in that cure, well hell, let them click on it. It's just one of the 375 links on our home page. For the rest of us, we know what parts of the screen are news and which are less newsy.
We're not holding a gun to people's heads and shoving the berries up their butts. We're offering a smorgasbord of ads, news, paid content and broken links. They can take what they want.
6:49 -- I agree with you, of course, about being able to ignore the bad reporting, etc. I've been doing that for some time at my paper. But I still get pissed when I'm redirected to ad links that look like they're supposed to be editorial content.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't get sucked in by the Acai Berry thing, but I've seen similar things with financial stories. And the headlines on ads like that are much more difficult to sort from real stories. Sure, I figure it out once I'm redirected, but that's also when I get frustrated with the experience.
I guess, what I'm saying is that by mixing deceptive ads in with the already watered down content that we've created, Gannett is giving me little reason to visit its sites. And it's giving me plenty of reason to leave and never return.
A smorgasbord isn't a good thing if half the offerings are something you would never want to sample.
I love the pop-up blocker! Everytime another ad is coming my way, it gets blocked and I just keep trawling along.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I gave up reading USAT quite a while ago, but I still do the daily crossword.
Sometimes there's an ad there and sometimes no ad. In any event, it comes and goes quickly. The last ad I recall was for some prize fight. I'd have thought some other product might be a better fit for a crossword page.